Aircraft: COMMERCIAL FIXED WING
Phase of flight: Descent; Final Approach; Initial Approach
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types

While a night circle to Runway 26 at BUR would be an unusual event and very uncommon event; I believe that is precisely the reason why we should prohibit it; unless we wish to specifically train for the maneuver in the simulator; which is clearly cost prohibitive and impractical. My concern is with the following scenario: A crew departs for Burbank with the expectation of landing on Runway 08; or maybe [Runway] 33; the most common landing runways. For the landing the conditions are 'good;' i.e. a clear night with good VMC conditions. Shortly before landing; maybe while [we were] getting the ATIS or shortly afterwards; Runway 08 became unusable; possibly due to tailwinds exceeding 10 KTS. Runway 33/15 is unusable due to unexpected closure; with little or no notice; for whatever reason; lighting or disabled aircraft on the runway; pick your reason. The crew has little loiter fuel normally we plan to land in BUR with 5.0-5.5; which makes sense as you want to be as light as possible and there are plenty of alternates close by. The crew is now time compressed (heading into the yellow). The crew; with an inadequate briefing (no time; last-minute; no access to topographical charts to assess the terrain risk; no time to review such charts even if they had them) decides to attempt a night circling approach to Runway 26. The aircraft has an incident or accident; worst case; CFIT with the high terrain just off the approach end of Runway 26 or a hard/long/short/rejected landing. I am assuming in this ASAP report the crew makes a left circle to Runway 26 should a crew make a right circle (prohibited even in day visual conditions by the easy to miss note on the Company Visual for Runway 26 Chart page) then the situation would be even worse. I believe a substantial majority of our captains would attempt a night visual to Runway 26 based upon an informal survey I have taken. Most initially ask 'can we even do that;' but when they realize it is 'legal' about 80% say they would 'give it a go.' About 20% say; no; they would divert. I believe a circling approach to Runway 26 at night in VMC conditions carries an unacceptable level of risk because: 1. Almost all of our crews; probably 99.9% or more; have no experience circling to Runway 26 at Burbank; either day or night. I also do not have that experience. 2. Many of our crews have little mountain flying experience. It is not in our culture or general experience here. Also; we do not routinely train for mountainous terrain operations unlike say for example; airlines operating into Telluride or Aspen. 3. Circling to Runway 26 at Burbank at night carries (rather like circling at night at Aspen) an extreme risk of CFIT. 4. Using none-exact; but probably very close to actual numbers on my iPad with some mapping software; I estimate on final to Runway 26; the 1;379 MSL contour line is 3.3 miles from the end of the runway. The 2;200 MSL contour line is about 4.6 miles from the end of Runway 26. The Runway 26 touchdown zone is at 697 MSL; so in other words; a 'normal' three mile base to final turn; if straight in and not slanted toward the runway; would put the aircraft at maybe 300 FT to 500 FT AGL over the terrain. In fairness; a really close final at 1.5 miles would put the aircraft safely inside the rapidly rising terrain but we don't train for that here so I would not expect all crews to safely be able to do that on a reliably repeatable basis. 5. The aircraft would have to be fully configured for landing on the base to final leg; with gear and flaps extended. The company manual does not give enough specifics for me to be sure. (I would need the actual equipment manual) but it appears the GPWS terrain mode is inhibited with the flaps in the landing configuration. 6. I am not sure; but maybe the EGPWS terrain mode might also be inhibited as you are so close to the landing runway; maybe not; I am not sure about this. 7. Either way; an aircraft making a left base circling approach to Runway 26 that received an EGPWS terrain warning could probably not follow our guidance exactly as in the non-normal section of the QRH. The guidance calls for; in Step 4; 'Simultaneously roll wings level' depending on how low the aircraft was; and where it was in the circling approach and what heading it was on when the alert came up; the only viable escape might be to continue the left circle rolling wings level might well not allow sufficient climb gradient to out climb the terrain. I know some might say its common sense to not roll wings level; but again; that is not what we are trained to do. 8. Even if the crew managed the terrain risk successfully; the approach is still very challenging as it has to be done as a tight circling approach; with a two-mile or less final and the there is no visual approach path guidance to Runway 26. No PAPI or VASI and of course; the runway is rather short to be landing without any approach path guidance.I think there are some contributing factors that might 'encourage' crews to attempt a visual approach to [Runway] 26 at night. 1. The landing data is in the Performance Publication. This implies Company approval to land on [Runway] 26. There is no caution note in the Performance Publication or anywhere else about night landings on [Runway] 26. 2. There is a note on the Company Procedures page that states 'Arrivals on Runway 26 may be given by the Tower.' This implies the Company has the expectation that Runway 26 may be used for landing from time to time. 3. We do not have a Safety Alert page highlighting the terrain risk of attempting to circle to Runway 26; especially at night. 4. While the information that there is no PAPI or VASI on Runway 26 is available on the back of the Airport Diagram page; it would be easy to miss when making a last-minute decision to use that runway. 5. On the ILS Runway 8 approach; there is a specific note that circling to Runway 26 is not authorized at night but this prohibition does not apply to visual approaches. Plus; the note is in a smaller typeface and would be easy to miss. Even a daytime right circle to [Runway] 26 is prohibited on the ILS; but the only note prohibiting a visual right circle to Runway 26; day or night is hard to find/easy to miss; in the text of the Company Visual for Runway 26 Chart page which is titled in the iPad app as 'Weather.' Preventative Measures: 1. Publish a Safety Alert page highlighting the risks of circling to Runway 26 during the day; should the Company wish to continue to allow day circling to [Runway] 26. 2. Prohibit night circling to Runway 26. 3. Highlight the Performance Publication's Runway 26 landing data with 'daylight use only' assuming the company wishes to permit daytime use of [Runway] 26. 4. Make specific reference to the lack of a PAPI or VASI on [Runway] 26 in the Additional Runway 26 Approach Reference Chart page and also on the Company Procedures page. 5. Repeat the reference on the Company Visual for Runway 26 Chart page about circling to land is not authorized northeast of Runway 15 and [Runway] 26 on the Company Procedures page and the Additional Runway 26 Approach Reference Chart page. 6. Change the title in the iPad app for the Company Visual for Runway 26 Chart page from 'Weather' to 'Overview' so it falls as the second page listed on the Reference charts tab rather than being at the bottom of the reference section; under the title of weather where it might be missed. For example; the only place the important note prohibiting any (day or night) circling northeast of Runway 15/26 is under this Weather section. An air carrier Captain described his reasoning for suggesting that night visual approaches to BUR Runway 26 be prohibited.